FLOOD08154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A-7 Wright-McLaughlin Engineers Page 'i' Oci:ober 27, 1972 and drains, there is ordinarily no duty on the part of a municipality for the non-exercise of the power of draina,re so as teo prevent the flow- ing of surface water upon property adjacent to streets. 11 57 Am Jur: (2d) 20:;, Section 238. Adoption of an alternative '",hich does not, call for con- struction is particularly deBira,ble from a legal standpoint, since it contemplates continuing t,o m:e the natural stream and the natural historical flow 'would continue. Under these circumstances it would be exi:remely difficult for a property owner to convince a court that his land had been subjected to a greater burden or hazard than that t:o which it would have been exposed had the alternai:ive not heen adopted, since the water course under this alternateive is left in its natural state. The next question which we considered was whether the existing artificial impediments to the flow of the water course (the crossings by the Union Pacific Railroad and by Sheridan Boulevard) would eni:ail an assumption of liability by the district upon adoption of tehis alternative. In our opinion, the adoption of thiB alternative, in and of itBelf, would not cause the district to assume responsibility for the failure of either of these s"l:ructures" It is clear that if the structures had been built by the district, the district would have a responsibility to cons- truct them in such a way that: they could accomodate not only the natural flow of the stream, but also such excess flow as may be reasonably anticipated, In the instant case, how- ever, where the district had no part in the construction of these dikes, it is our opinion t:hat it will acquire no res- ponsibility for the inadequacies in the absence of any conduct on the part of the district ,,,,hich adopts or ratifies the in- adequacies. Stackhouse vs. I,afc~yettE>, 26 Ind 17, 89 Am Dee 450.